Is Baptism Essential for Salvation? - Program 2

Program 2: Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation? Was the Thief on the Cross Saved Without Baptism?

Ankerberg: Gentlemen, we’re so glad that you are here with us tonight. Last week we were talking about what is necessary for salvation. We were talking about the thief on the cross. Would you like to continue that conversation? We also want to talk about Cornelius, and we’ve made some statements about that. Who would like to start.

Kingdon: Well I’d like to say this. The argument from Hebrews 9 is employed by our friends to meet the objection that the thief upon the cross was saved without baptism, and they say that he was saved without baptism under the old covenant. I say that he was saved under the new covenant on the basis of John 20 because our Lord died before him, and therefore the new covenant was in force.

Allen: I don’t believe the new covenant was in force until Pentecost. But granting the argument, let’s grant the argument that David is right. Saying that he is right, I maintain that he was initially saved back here while Christ was still living and thus before the new covenant went into force. His actual going into paradise was after the Lord’s death, but his becoming a saved man was before the Lord’s death and to find out what to do to be saved now, you’re going to have to come this side of the great commission.

Ankerberg: Are you saying in a sense then that he does not pass as an example for what you are saying or anybody is saying.

Allen: Right. No one had to be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins until after the great commission went into force.

Kingdon: Well, that destroys Hebrews 9, because the argument in Hebrews 9 is that the testament comes into force on the death of the testator, not 50 days afterwards on the day of Pentecost. You can’t have it both ways.

Allen: I’d be delighted to respond. You make a will. David has made his will, and at the very moment he dies, the wealth will not be distributed. (Incidentally, David, if it were me it wouldn’t be much of a distribution.) But, anyhow, when David dies it is true that after that his will goes into force once it is probated. The Lord Jesus during His personal ministry was gradually revealing the part of the New Testament which was to go into force after His death, and I maintain the will was probated on Pentecost Day when the gospel was preached as an accomplished fact for the first time.

Ankerberg: Alright. If there’s any other further comments, I’d like to jump to the next topic, if we could. Would you mind if I threw in a key verse in the book of Romans? Romans 3:26: “He made Him to be a propitiation for our sins.” I don’t have my Bible here, if possibly you gentlemen would like to take a look at that, and one of you, if you would read it, it seems like Paul is building an argument concerning faith, and about blood, and I know that both of you on both sides of this question are going to do some deep study here in Romans. Romans 3:25-26. Would someone read that for me. I’d like to have a comment from either one of you.

Kingdon: “Whom God hath sent forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”

Ankerberg: May I ask you gentlemen on both sides what do you think Paul is saying there?

Jones: Okay, let me jump in right here, John. I believe he is talking about faith that justification is by faith and not by the works of the old law. This is the argument that Paul makes throughout the whole book. He talks about through faith in His blood. As we started the program last week, we pointed out that Jimmy and I are not maintaining baptismal regeneration. We are saved by the blood of Christ, we are saved by the death of Christ, and that’s why in Romans – staying in the book – look at Romans 6:3. The Bible says: “Know ye not, that all of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Now where it says “were baptized into his death,” this is a figure of speech we call metonymy, which simply means were baptized into the benefits of His death. So the benefits that the death of Christ brought, the benefits that the blood of Jesus Christ brought, it’s in baptism then when we are united and brought unto union with these benefits.

Ankerberg: So you would say that in the baptism ceremony itself, it is at that point you have contact, or the application of salvation is made.

Bjornstad: I think the first area of comment is that we move very quickly from Romans 3 to Romans 6. In any hermeneutic approach to the Scriptures or any honest approach, the first thing is to deal with Romans 3. Hermeneutics is the science of the study of the Scriptures. You study the words and the grammar in the context in which it occurs. First of all, there is no mention of baptism in Romans 3 in the passage that we read about propitiation. Only by jumping to Romans 6 could that be brought in. So the first thing I think we have to acknowledge is Romans 3 does not cover that but rather speaks about propitiation by faith.

Ankerberg: What is a propitiation?

Bjornstad: Propitiation is a word that can be used for satisfaction, even a reconciliation with God. Many times the word is used in the Septuagint of the mercy seat where God accomplished atonement for us through the sacrifice and of course through Jesus Christ.

Ankerberg: So what does the verse mean?

Bjornstad: So I think the passage is teaching that we are made right, that we have satisfied God’s demands, that that has been done through Jesus Christ, His shed blood; and through faith in Him we are saved.

Ankerberg: Have we done it? Have we satisfied God?

Bjornstad: We are not the ones who satisfy. Jesus is the One who has paid that for us as the propitiation.

Ankerberg: And how does it come? According to that verse, how would you say it is applied?

Bjornstad: Okay, the passage here would indicate the fact that it’s by faith, first of all. Romans 3:24 “Being justified as a gift by his grace [that it is God’s doing] through redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” And then as you go further with that passage, you’ll pick up the idea in verse 25 “whom God displayed publicly [that is, Jesus] as a propitiation [or satisfaction] in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness because in the forbearance of God he passed over the sins previously committed.” And then he goes on to say, “that He [that is God] might be the just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” [Rom. 3:24-26] The passage only teaches that faith in Christ is essential to have that rightness with God. Only as you jump to Romans 6 can baptism be brought in. I want to make that very clear to begin with.

Ankerberg: Alright, comment also on Romans 6 then.

Bjornstad: Romans 6, as I go to that passage, the key to that is the language that is used there which connotes some of the ideas of similes. For instance, “in the likeness of his resurrection,” “in the likeness of his death.” [Rom. 6:5] It’s used here basically in somewhat of a figurative sense of identification; that is, us with Christ in His death and in His resurrection. But I do not find it used in a literal sense at all in that passage as water baptism as he indicates.

Ankerberg: So you would agree that we are united with Christ, but you are saying that it is not a one-to-one identification there.

Bjornstad: No. The word likeness would indicate that it could not be.

Ankerberg: If it’s not a one to one in its likeness, what would you call that?

Bjornstad: Well, the phrase that is used most of the time is a simile. It bears a resemblance or an analogy to that which you have. For instance, if you say this person is like that person, you don’t me that he is the same as that person. You mean rather that he bears some resemblance. And I think that’s what we are talking about here: that baptism bears some resemblance in the sense it identifies us with His death, but it is not His death and it is not His resurrection.

Ankerberg: Alright. Response.

Jones: Now, also, let’s go back to the Romans 3 passage. I’d be more than happy to go back to that. It does not mention repentance either, and yet Jim would believe that repentance is essential to salvation. Now if you understand it and want to bring up hermeneutic principles, I think that is excellent, because many times you have a part standing for the whole. If you understand faith as an umbrella to include everything that God requires us to do, then you don’t have any trouble with it. For instance, let me just modify the idea of faith. For instance, in Galatians 3:26: “For ye are all the sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Alright, that’s exactly what James is maintaining. But watch verse 27: “For [which is the Greek word gar, which introduces a reason] all of you were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.” So if you understand faith to include everything, then you are okay. Romans 3 doesn’t include repentance, it doesn’t say anything about loving God, it doesn’t say anything about confessing Christ. But Jim might not take this position.

Ankerberg: Alright, Jim.

Bjornstad: My response to that would be again he is bringing outside passages into the text. First by trying repentance and then by trying baptism. Now metonymies or any figures of speech, the basic rules of interpreting the Scriptures as you begin with it in terms of literal understanding – face value every day – until you on longer can. And then at that point, you begin to consider the fact that it is something that may be a figure of speech or figurative language, or literary device. What he has done is simply again to incorporate more into faith. I would disagree, of course, with him as to what constitutes that faith.

Ankerberg: Alright, he is asking the question, though, what about these other things, because I would assume that you hold repentance as well, and it doesn’t say that there. What would be your response on that?

Bjornstad: My response to that would be that faith itself, as indicated in James, is not something that the demons themselves could believe, or merely an intellectual belief, but also incorporates the idea of trusting and putting yourself into it. And if you do that, then you repent. So I see faith and repentance coming together, and I think that’s the way “faith” is used biblically because intellectual belief is denoted in James as being separate from the biblical kind of faith when it refers to the demonic. I think in the case of the other, though, what he has done quickly is to jump right past that into baptism which he wants and then bring that into the passage.

Ankerberg: Alright, Jerry, can I come back to you in terms of the comment that Romans 6 is figurative and you have words such as “the likeness of His death,” or “the likeness of his resurrection.”

Jones: Okay. Let me make one comment about this Romans 3. You see, he is including repentance in faith, and yet he can’t find the word repentance there. Alright, all I’m saying is that faith includes everything that God says. Now, why am I wrong in using the same writer’s definition of faith in Galatians 3? It’s the same writer. So here’s your comment upon it. Now let’s go to Romans 6.

Kingdon: Now, when you are dealing with Romans 6:3 you say, as I understand your teaching, that baptism puts us into contact with the blood of Christ, okay.

Allen: The death of Christ.

Kingdon: Well, with the death of Christ.

Jones: Into the death of Christ.

Kingdon: Well, you will admit the blood stands for His death.

Allen: That’s right.

Jones: Yes.

Kingdon: Alright, what about then Romans 3:25? What does faith do? And this comes before Romans 6. Does faith put us into contact with the blood of Christ? The saving death of Christ?

Jones: Now, while he defined faith, I’m going to agree.

Kingdon: Well, it seems to me that Romans 3:25 teaches very clearly that faith does put us into contact with the saving death of Christ, which is the propitiation, that is to say it removes God’s wrath from us due to us for our sins. And I don’t see that that can be avoided.

Ankerberg: Would you say, Jerry, that faith puts you into contact with the death of Christ?

Jones: Properly defined biblical faith, yes.

Ankerberg: Okay, define it as you would see it.

Jones: Okay. Of course, they’re not wanting me to go to other passages, but I went to Galatians 3 to show you the definition of faith. Hebrews 11 simply says the faith that saves is the faith that obeys. We’ve got, “Noah, by faith, built the ark and he was saved.” [Heb. 11:7]

Ankerberg: Okay, let’s hold on to those two verses. We’ve got Galatians 3 and Hebrews 11. Response on that.

Kingdon: Now you’ve been to Romans 6:3. Now Paul in Romans 6 is not making a direct statement about baptism. He is appealing to the meaning of baptism and in particular to what baptism commits Christians to. It commits them to a certain way of life because of what it signifies and symbolizes. So he’s appealing to the ethical significance of baptism. He is not making a statement about the saving significance of baptism. And that is a very, very important distinction.

Ankerberg: We need to comment still on Galatians 3, if you would, and Hebrews 11.

Kingdon: Galatians 3. Let me just ask you whether there is metaphor in Galatians 3?

Jones: What is it?

Kingdon: Well, I would ask you whether there is any there?

Jones: What part of it?

Kingdon: Well, when you put on Christ. [Gal. 3:27] Do you literally put on Christ?

Jones: Okay, why don’t you respond on the idea of gar, “for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ [as an expression] those are of sons of God.” [Gal. 3:27]

Kingdon: Sure. It doesn’t give me any problem. Because when I was baptized I professed to be a child of God, I professed to put on Christ, I professed to have died to sin.

Jones: Did you put on Christ before baptism?

Kingdon: In one sense, yes, and in another sense, no.

Jones: How about in the sense of Galatians 3:27?

Kingdon: Well, let me ask you about Romans 6. Are we crucified with Christ in baptism?

Jones: You’re jumping to Romans and I’m going to stick with Galatians for a while.

Kingdon: Alright, but I want to draw out a point here. Are we crucified with Christ in baptism?

Jones: Yes.

Kingdon: What about Galatians 2:20 then?

Jones: Okay, I am crucified with Christ.

Kingdon: We are crucified with Christ when Christ died for us on the cross. Right? Let me just quote it: “I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”

Jones: Okay, when did that death of mine take place?

Kingdon: It took place in one very profound sense when Christ died, because I died in union with Him.

Jones: Let me read to you where it took place. In Romans 6:4: “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death.” There’s where I died.

Kingdon: No! I died with Christ in union with Him when he died for me.

Jones: Well, when you were baptized, what kind of union did you have then?

Ankerberg: The question is not whether or not there is an exact one-to-one union, but is that used as a teaching tool of illustration?

Jones: Let’s come back to Galatians 3:27. Now if you were clothed with Christ before you were baptized, what does 3:27 mean?

Kingdon: I take that as one has put Him on in one’s Christian profession.

Jones: Before or after baptism?

Kingdon: In baptism.

Jones: Okay, you put it on in baptism so therefore it wasn’t put on before you were baptized.

Kingdon: No. I have no problem with that.

Jones: Could you be saved without putting....

Kingdon: But are we using metaphorical language or are we saying that baptism effects what it signifies?

Jones: Could you be saved without putting on Christ?

Kingdon: I would say yes because I am putting on Christ in the sense of Christian profession.

Jones: You are saying that you could be saved without putting on Christ.

Kingdon: No, you are putting words into my mouth. You are putting words into my mouth. You see, I am trying to get at the point of the language here. Is it metaphorical or is it literal. Am I literally clothed with Christ, as a garment?

Jones: It’s descriptive of what is taking place.

Kingdon: Exactly! But that’s the whole point at issue. Do I literally put on Christ? Am I literally crucified with Christ, Romans 6, in baptism?

Ankerberg: Let me bring up a question here that seems to be apparent, and maybe it’s not. But it seems after a person is saved – let’s assume that a person is baptized, has faith, repentance and so on – are there any terms in Scripture that you would concede that happened after baptism that would be growth in the Christian life?

Jones: Well, we’re told to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. [2 Pet. 3:18]

Ankerberg: Would there be any figurative language that Paul uses in Ephesians or other places that would suggest growth?

Allen: May I respond to that? Figurative and metaphor and what have you. Galatians 3:26-27 is a passage on sonship. It deals with sonship. And if you will back up starting at about Galatians 3:11 and working through to verse 27, it has to do with our putting on Christ in the sense of being clothed with His righteousness. It is the act in which we are clothed with the righteousness of Christ literally. There is literally where we receive the Lord’s righteousness. It’s not talking about after one becomes a son. It’s talking about how people become sons and they put on the garment in the sense that they put on the righteousness of Christ. We’re made righteous through Him. The only difference between these gentlemen and us is baptism a part of the process by which we are made righteous. Repentance is faith turning, confession is faith speaking, baptism is faith obeying the Lord to be brought into a dynamic union with Jesus and it’s a part of the process of salvation by faith. It’s not faith plus anything, it’s faith properly defined.

Ankerberg: Just a final comment, Jim.

Bjornstad: Let me just give a quick comment to it. I think his argument basically is extension. He starts with the idea of the clothing of Christ and all of a sudden comes up with the idea of the righteousness of Christ. You’ve got a verse for that?

Jones: Yes sir. It’s in the context.

Ankerberg: Alright, let’s hold it until next week. Thank you, gentlemen, for this week.

John Ankerberg’s remarks on Acts 2:38

Dr. Jimmy Allen – Response to John Ankerberg’s Remarks on Acts 2:38